What if he didn’t die immediately? If Z can be made to admit in court that he aimed his gun and knew he couldn’t have missed, can his actions in diving straight on TM be interpreted as ill-intent?
First it would have to be proven that Zimmerman dived onto Martin, and there isn’t any evidence of that.
Second, it would have to be proven that Zimmerman dived in with the intention of shooting. Given that Zimmerman did not fire immediately, but rather waited until after Martin got on top of him and bashed his head on the ground, that is also going to be difficult to prove.
Regards,
Shodan
Zimmerman admits it. Allegedly to secure the weapon he thought TM had(despite saying TM had both hands over his nose and mouth at one point). The first witness on scene describes Z being on top of Martin asking for help to restrain him(he also mentions being able to see the powder burns on TM’s chest, which seems strange when Z says he was face down.). Then they have a casual conversation about what bullets Z was using, while Z has his serious head wounds photographed and they waited for the police to arrive.
Proving the cuts on the back of his head could not have been caused through having his head smashed against the edge of a concrete slab shouldn’t be too hard.
I don’t think so. The coroner seems to say the cause of death is the gunshot, not a body slam.
If Zimmerman says he aimed his gun and knew he couldn’t have missed, and that he wasn’t in fear of his life or of injury, then he’s admitted to the crime, of course. But if he says he aimed his gun and knew he couldn’t have missed BECAUSE he was in fear of serious injury, then I don’t see how diving on Martin is a measure of the necessary soite, ill-will, or malice.
I suppose if he says, “I dove on him, and I wanted to crush him like a grape, that burglarizing bastard,” then, yes, that would be ill-intent, but it doesn’t cause a death. A jury hearing that line might infer he harbored similar sentiments beforehand, though.
Dived onto Martin with intent to shoot? No he doesn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
I wasn’t talking about before the shooting.
Bricker,
Would 776.012 even be available to Zimmerman?
I mentioned this weeks ago, but wouldn’t 776.041 be more appropriate?
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I am guessing section two would be relevant…it’s going to be an uphill battle for the defense considering the wounds don’t really match up with him being “pounded into the pavement” and the lack of evidence on Martin (DNA and otherwise)–although the chorus keeps on bringing up this small scratch on Martin (BULLSHIT).
I am going to assume they will try to argue from section (b).
This will be problematic…considering a simple analysis of the timeline. Zimmerman was “keeping an eye on” (LOL) Martin for AT LEAST 15-17 minutes before the killing. Even the police said Martin was generally going in the direction of the house. Zimmerman admitted on the call that “he ran”.
Again, what the hell does Zimmerman have?
And the chorus wants to act like I haven’t been reading the law…
IMO, Zimmerman’s options are very limited–VERY.
Again, thank you for the ray of light here–it gets awfully dim in here sometimes. I enjoy our exchanges and the balance and intelligence you bring.
P.S. Watch the Hannity interview. I think that’s where he said he wasn’t afraid and that Martin was “skipping away” LOL.
On that alone, how the hell can he claim self-defense? This is what is driving me crazy with these groupies.
Couldn’t his actions be offered as proof that he couldn’t have been that scared of Martin, if he didn’t know his shot had hit him and he still dived straight back into the fray?
Do you have any recent Florida cites of the prosecution getting a conviction for manslaughter given a similar set of facts? As far as I can see, Zimmerman was carrying a firearm he was legally permitted to carry in a place he was legally allowed to be. If we were dealing with a case of civil negligence against Zimmerman or the home owners association, then you would have much stronger case. It doesn’t matter what the law might say in another state.
dimmy,
You don’t need all of that.
Zimmerman said in an interview he wasn’t afraid of Martin.
Anyway, How could he have been afraid? He followed him. You usually aren’t afraid of people you pursue–not in my neck of the woods, anyway.
Especially with a loaded firearm.
This has been discussed many times already. Zimmerman was pinned to the floor, had no means of escape, and so that section is not relevant.
If it can be shown that he wasn’t even afraid right after he’d almost been beaten within an inch of his life - by his own telling - that’s even better.
I suspect his lack of fear changed at the point Martin started punching him.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? That he wasn’t in fear before Martin attacked him is utterly, completely irrelevant to whether he was acting in self defence. What matters is whether he was in fear at the time he shot him (not before, not after, at that precise instant), and if so, whether that fear was reasonable. If so, he is factually innocent of murder.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, all Zimmerman has to do is claim this, and the prosecution have to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
So, a simple question. Do you think it’s reasonable to believe that someone who’s been punched hard enough to have there nose broken and knock them to the floor, and who has the person who punched them on top of them continuing the attack, to be in fear of serious injury?
Why would he be afraid afterwards? The beating had ended, Martin was dead. What do you expect him to be afraid of?
It’s his state of mind at the instant he fired the shot that’s relevant, and only then.
Actually, the only witness who had any real view of the fighting says that TM was lay along Z at first and he didn’t know if Trayvon was pinning Z down, or if Z was preventing him getting up. And we still only have Z’s word for how they ended up on the floor.
How do we know that by the time that witness had headed upstairs and heard the shot, Z hadn’t managed to gain the advantage over TM?
Did you miss the part of his testimony where he says he didn’t know he’d hit him at first, and jumped on him to find his weapon? So, not only is he unsure if his attacker has been injured, he also thinks he’s got a weapon, and the previously wetting his pants George suddenly turns all heroic?
So, a simple answer.
It’s very reasonable to be in fear of serious injury. People can be in fear of serious injury for different reasons.
Doesn’t mean the law is behind him.
He probably wasn’t expecting Martin to resist him.
That’s why if you watch the hour long police interview, you hear Zimmerman telling the policewoman that she has a command presence and that’s why she never had to shoot anyone.
I know, it’s frustrating, isn’t it?
No, actually it does. That’s the specific criterion allowing the use of lethal force in self defence in Florida.
I don’t even believe someone can be punched on the nose in one direction, fall to the ground and then slide over 30ft in the opposite direction, however wet the grass was, and however the hard the punch was.